Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Developers have released a 'jailbreak' tool for Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, allowing the handsets to run any application, not just those approved for distribution through Microsoft's Marketplace. Although reminiscent of jailbreak tools for the iPhone, this tool, called ChevronWP7, addresses a feature missing in Microsoft's Windows Phone 7. It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets without the need to first place the application on Marketplace, as is currently required by Microsoft."

"It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets"

Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?

If it's their phone, why are you trying to stop it? If it's your phone, why are you hooking it up to your company's servers?

I read this as more of an in-house corporate thing, as opposed to carriers. Though, I guess it's stupid of me to assume the carriers won't ultimately muck up your phone with crap they want to install (which I'm su

According to this guy [withinwindows.com] it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.

Yep this is just a trick. Microsoft has released a veiled "Jailbreak" and by the time you're done coding your application for your Jailbroke Windows 7 Phone, you'll realize that you just coded a WinCE application for a mobile phone! Even worse, you purchased one thinking you could jailbreak it!

Windows CE isn't a bad OS. I wished MS could have taken a different tack, but I sort of understand how they are going with WP7:

1: Release as closed as possible.2: Add functionality.

The reason for this is that if they continued with the "open" platform of WM6.5, eventually there would be malware on the platform and the whole ecosystem would be known for being "insecure" just as users bash Windows on their PC for being "insecure" (when it is their own fault for installing pr0nviewerxxx.exe, or they get nai

if they continued with the "open" platform of WM6.5, eventually there would be malware on the platform and the whole ecosystem would be known for being "insecure" just as users bash Windows on their PC for being "insecure"

Really? All they'd have to do is make it a user optional switch with respect to non-store software and flip it to off by default, and make the store prominent. They'd probably never have an issue. Forcibly locking the system down with no opt-out doesn't help security at all.

Like Apple, this is all about total control over the end user and using that control to route them through profit centers (and I don't believe for a moment that these stores will not be profitable, otherwise what's the point.)

Most instances of malware on the Windows desktop operating system are due to users actively installing malicious programs, security warnings and toggle switches be damned. Malware is much more dangerous for MS than it is for Google or Android, because of the association consumers have between viruses and windows. Suddenly Apple is making "I'm an iPhone, I'm a Windows Phone" ads touting WP7 as the same old MS junk.

Microsoft's response (some time last week, this isn't 'new') was basically, "you get the best experience if you stay with the way the handset designers give it to you". As in, they're not saying yes or no, just the ambiguous we'd just rather you didn't.

And Since Raphael (co)wrote the tool in question its a good idea to listen to him.
Also not a jailbreak. Merely allows sideloading of apps. Doesn't do SIM unlocks or anything else. And microsoft does allow Corporations to side load app's. if you know who to ask...

Who do you ask? I haven't heard of any company getting special permissions except Adobe (because Microsoft really wants Flash) and the carriers/phone manufacturers (for obvious reasons). Do you know of any company that has gotten permission from MS to sideload apps, or is this just a rumor you heard?

I had no idea MS were doing the same thing as Apple, exercising completely control over what applications you have permission to install on a device you purchased. Why would they copy Apple in this area?

Original iPhone lacked 3G, MMS, video recording, third party apps of any kind, and of course an app store. To top it off, it cost $500-$600, came on one carrier, and a single form factor for all. This, on top of multitasking and copy/paste. If the only two things you can pick out are cp/multitasking, you're just grasping at straws to find shortcomings of the platform.

The fact is, these shortcomings of the iPhone were vehemently defended by Apple aficionados. Before June 21, 2010, the official line from Apple users was "Who needs multitasking on a phone?" Now it's some sort of benchmark for the success/failure of a platform, despite the fact that the iPhone earned most of its respect before iOS 4.0.

I understand that today, iPhone does have multitasking/c&p, and I agree it's a shortcoming of the WP7 platform, but I don't think it's a deal killer as there are other reasons to want one of the phones (xbox integration, wireless sync, zunepass, and office integration are my major interests in the platform), and they're sure to be introduced in future updates.

I still say, "Who needs multitasking on a phone?" There are a few set things that I'd like to be able to run in the background, but I don't need real multitasking. I don't need to be able to edit word documents while watching a Netflix movie. I don't need the phone to be displaying an ebook in the background while I'm using the display to display web pages. All that stuff just wastes RAM and CPU cycles. Everyone recognizes this.

In truth, Microsoft is copying Apple here in a very particular way: they'r

I don't need to be able to edit word documents while watching a Netflix movie.

The funny thing is, iPhone (or at least iPad, because that's my only experience with iOS 4) still can't do this. When you switch out of the netflix app, the movie stops playing, and sometimes even quits playing when you return to the app.

The scenario I run in to is while I'm watching a movie, I might recognize one of the actors and want to know what I've seen him in. So I launch the IMDB app. Netflix will stop playback entirely; when I go to resume, it's not a matter of hitting unpause, but restarting the viewing session. Sometimes playback resumes from where I left off, sometimes not. It seems to be random.

Actually, iOS had this functionality before 4.0. On my iPad (pre 4.2), iBooks saved my page location if I left to go into safari. The best thing 4.2 actually added was a quick app switcher (double home button click). Otherwise it's not all that different from before unless your app takes advantage of special functionality (like Pandora).

I'm not sure how PDF readers work, but shouldn't you only have to render the page once, and only re-render it if it changes?

If this is the case, if I'm switching between my ebook and wikipedia, wouldn't it be more efficient to keep the ebook in memory, than to clear memory, close the application, re initialize the application, and then load the book back into memory?

Right, but judging the entire platform based on the lack or inclusion of c&p/multitasking is myopic. Despite theese features, WP7 does what other platforms do very well, and better in some situations (for example, I like the camera app better on WP7 compared to iPhone, and every WP7 device is required to have a dedicated hardware camera button, whereas iPhone is a software button you have to tap on the screen).

Further I feel that WP7 offers value that the iPhone or Android can't match like Xbox integrat

WP7 offers the same multitasking capabilities as the pre iOS 4.0 iPhone, and in some ways goes beyond it. That is, on WP7 you can suspend an application so that when you launch it again, you're where you left off. This accounts for probably 75% of a users need to multitask, and must be implemented on a per application basis. WP7 calls it "tombstoning" (when the application is terminated, a record of its state, the tombstone, is created, and read when the application is launched again.)

Because the community would rather have stable tested apps over the freedom to write and deploy their own apps... which the vast vast majority of them don't have the skills to do in the first place? That's my guess.

Once again it is over the heads of the community here to see that people really don't want all this freedom in their computing platforms. They just want it to work. They pay for having a working gadget. Why does this escape the average Slashdotter?

Because the community would rather have stable tested apps over the freedom to write and deploy their own apps... which the vast vast majority of them don't have the skills to do in the first place? That's my guess.

You give Microsoft (and Apple) too much credit. It's all about routing users through their respective App Stores, which allow them to have complete control over the platform and turn every bit of functionality into a revenue source for themselves.

Err, yes they do. On-device testing requires paying the $99 fee and you're limited in the number of handsets you can load it on. Additionally, you must load it on each handset manually as it cannot be distributed to end users directly without going through the App Store.

No, Apple and Microsoft are in the same exact lock down boat here. Only differences are the APIs and the fees.

Yes i will defend DRM and lockdown, when it brings a product that is, IMHO, far superior to anything else on the market. Apple has brought some of the most innovative, useable products to the computing stage that have ever existed. I firmly believe that the iOS products would not be as good if you simply let users click a button or whatever to turn off the control apple has over the platform.

You're being an idealist. Everything is not black and white, good or bad. I know you really don't want to see it, but apple's lockdown is a part of what makes their products good. Mac OS X *is* more locked down than Linux or windows, or had you forgotten? And iOS is better than Mac OS X, at least for most everyday purposes. Sure it's not the only thing that makes the platform great, but it is an integral part. In a perfect world... Sure maybe we wouldn't need DRM or lockdown. Let me know when you find the r

No, enterprise does not require you to manually distribute it. Since iOS 4 there has been over their air distribution to unlimited handsets. The major drawback to enterprise is the 500 person threshold.

Ad Hoc certainly has drawbacks, but certainly is doable if necessary but should be easier to distribute.

Please, some more uneducated opinions. Lets bash Apple with what we think we know!

Apple's iPhone Enterprise Developer Program is only for companies with 500 or more employees, and ad-hoc is limited to 100 devices. What is for companies in the gap between 100 devices and 500 employees?

Why do you believe the "No, never, not allowed, won't happen" approach is preferred over "Use at your own risk if you choose so" approach? Android has this little neat option "Allow applications from untrusted and 3rd party sources" which you must find in menu and enable manually. People who don't want unreliable apps leave the option unchecked and that's it. The users are completely free to remain within the stable, tested realm, but that's no reason to expressly forbid, fight and deny access to other apps

If the option exists, then eventually most people will be exposed to an app they really want but requires them to click that button and turn off the safety of the app store. I think it's fine to force people to jailbreak to get that kind if freedom on this kind of platform.

MS wants to put out a stable, good performing phone OS. Locking it down to vetted apps from people who register weeds out a lot of malware as well as a lot of apps that will make the performance of the battery and other apps terrible giving users the impression that the OS/phone sucks. Further, it gives MS more control in case they want to lock things down in future. It requires developers to learn MS's dev tools, thus adding yet another block to cement MS's domination of the desktop OS market. Additionally

Locking it down to vetted apps from people who register weeds out a lot of malware

So does proper sandboxing of applications. See OLPC Bitfrost [laptop.org] for an example of how to do it right.

While I'm a big fan of Bitfrost style sandboxing, you're missing part of the picture here. Android, iOS, and Windows 7 Phone Edition, all use sandboxing already. But who configures the sandbox? Users clearly don't have the expertise, so like with the OLPC you end up with a vendor doing it for the user. That's what the App stores are.You go there and download apps and ACLs.

as well as a lot of apps that will make the performance of the battery and other apps terrible

Then the battery management application should list what applications have used the most energy, where energy is estimated from cumulative CPU time, camera time, GPS time, etc.

Assuming doing that level of monitoring doesn't hurt performance itself, why do you think users will look at the "battery management" app

Microsoft's stronghold is businesses. They always try to market as a one stop shop, providing all software from servers to desktops. Standardise on Microsoft is what many companies do. And MS seems to know that and cater to their needs with corporate installation keys, allowing companies to run their own update servers, etc.

And bigger companies of course have their own internal applications as well - Microsoft should know that very well.

It's only logical to me that MS would market their phones to businesses first: it's also from MS so relative easy to market, and presumably relative straightforward integration in existing networks.

MS has been trying to market phones to business for many years and getting beaten to death by RIM. They've poisoned their brand in the business smartphone market. Additionally, MS's modus operandi is to dominate a market first, then worry about making money. Business clients are not a big enough segment to pull that off overall, so they have to go after the iPhone and they need to concentrate somewhere first. If they gain any real market share, they'll go after business soon enough.

Well here's the thing that most analysts won't tell you: the business market ultimately tends to go to whatever is considered a status symbol by executives. Blackberry's success in the enterprise market is only partially due to technical benefits of their devices/software. A lot of their success has been because around 10 years ago, someone decided that having a Blackberry was a symbol that you were extremely important.

Frankly, iPhones started making inroads in the enterprise before they were technologic

One might guess that Apple copied Microsoft. The App Store rate structure ($99/yr to develop on a device that you purchased, plus a 30% cut of sales) is almost word-for-word copied from App Hub (formerly XNA Creators Club) and Xbox Live Indie Games.

Last I checked only AT&T was doing it, and IIRC they did it to only two handsets (which were rooted anyway.) Do you know of others that don't allow non-Market software?

Uh, most of them don't by default. Most require you to go through some set of machinations to jailbr... err... "root" the phone. AT&T just took it one step further by attempting to block the activity. And I absolutely guarantee you it'll only get worse.

Carriers have absolutely *no* interest in allowing arbitrary software to run on

As I understand it, there's a dialog where you can explicitly allow non-Marketplace software, and this was removed only on the AT&T handsets. Rooting isn't necessary for that (while it is for other things) last I checked.

Correct. And fundamentally, that's my point. People are so shocked that Apple and Microsoft limit the software that can be installed on their phones, but fundamentally, it's the carriers that are primarily responsible for this. If Apple and Microsoft want to play in the smartphone game, they're stuck working with the requirements carriers place on them.

IMHO, the only reason Google gets away with not enforcing this stuff more strictly is that a

People are so shocked that Apple and Microsoft limit the software that can be installed on their phones, but fundamentally, it's the carriers that are primarily responsible for this. If Apple and Microsoft want to play in the smartphone game, they're stuck working with the requirements carriers place on them.

Nah, I have to call shenanigans. Android devices and handset vendors need the discounts, so they have to play ball. Apple does the exact same thing, but they also do it to devices like the iPod Touch,

Apple does the exact same thing, but they also do it to devices like the iPod Touch, iPad, and Apple TV and none of those have anything to do with the carriers.

They use the same OS, so why is that surprising? ie, it's as much collateral damage as anything else. And, frankly, they have no reason to treat those platforms differently... it creates software development, testing, deployment, and support headaches, as they would suddenly have to have different versions of the OS running on different platforms.

That is the price you pay for letting the carrier subsidize your phone My GeeksPhone One wasn't that expensive and came pre-rooted with a boot menu (selectable by holding camera+ volume up on startup) that lets me backup/restore the rom, load OS updates and export the ROM as a USB drive.

Nintendo was much more strict. They limited developers to 5 releases a year (subject to content approval, although alot of crap got released anyway), plus they manufactured all the game carts. Konami got around this by creating Ultra Games and doubled the limit.

This I did not know, but it makes sense. That way they could have control over who has access to their technology; it's actually kind of brilliant. It also explains why the unlicensed games were all those funky colors...

Get a BlackBerry - then you don't need to jailbreak in the first place, as you're able to install whatever you want

As long as the developer has paid the $20 fee. (Unsigned apps apparently cannot make SSL connections.) This is less than Apple's iPhone fee, for example. But BlackBerry runs only Java. What's the easiest way to port the business logic of an application written in C++ or Objective-C to the Java virtual machine, and then update the Java version when the C++ version changes or vice versa?

The fee is waived, as is the fee for submitting apps to app world if you do decide to distribute through that channel channels. I'm not sure how long that will continue for, but it's been at least a month since it started. But as you said, it's not an unreasonable price - especially considering that if you don't pay the Apple fee, you can't develop for the platform at all (as opposed to being limited in what you can do).

But BlackBerry runs only Java. What's the easiest way to port the business logic of an application written in C++ or Objective-C to the Java virtual machine, and then update the Java version when the C++ version changes or vice versa?

True, though this is also true for Android isn't it? (albeit java-that-isn't-java)

Have you looked through the Blackberry API at all? It's pretty unpleasant compared with any of the more modern systems - either iOS, Android, or WP7.

I'm familiar with it (see sig). I don't find it unpleasant to work with, though to be fair I'm also not yet as familiar with the others -- so I've no basis for comparison other than vanilla j2me.

Most of the issues I have are common to all major platforms (except win7, since it's new): new functionality introduced in later SDK versions that is never made available to earlier versions, requiring me to do dual implementations of that functionality (once using the SDK,a nd once substituting for the SDK).

My thoughts exactly. I've been doing enterprise app development for IOS. the topic of jailbreaking comes up frequently. it's always quickly dismissed. The idea of a corporation of any size basing operations or strategy around unsupported hardware is pretty silly. What i find really bizzare is that windows phone 7 had no mechanism for enterprise deployment of apps. All along i thought their marketing of amazing xbox live integration was going to rub enterprise customers the wrong way.

It's simply targeted at end users, just like the iPhone primarily is...Corporate users are extremely conservative and have limited feature requirements... It's not a terribly good market because most companies will buy handsets which are a few years old or relatively lowend.

My evidence is largely anecdotal, but the enterprise market seems to be huge. I make marketing apps for a large international brewing company. They have thousands of devices in the field. Their staff take these devices to events and whatnot and use all this custom software. We have other clients coming in constantly telling us how their sales force has adopted ipads, but they want something custom and branded to really wow people.

They love the devices so much that we are now making enterprise apps for the